The amended Notice of Allegations North Carolina received from the NCAA on Monday looks a lot like the original notice issued nearly a year ago.

There are still five “Level 1” violations stemming from the academic scandal involving the school’s African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) program, including a lack of institutional control on the part of the athletic department.

But unlike the first NOA, which was issued on May 15, 2015, the new document does not specifically mention the Tar Heels’ men’s basketball or football programs.

Another change deals with the wording attached to the so-called “paper classes” at the center of the long-running scandal. Originally termed “impermissible benefits,” the classes are now referred to under the broader charge of “failure to monitor” the athletic department.

Here is the complete transcript of the amended NOA, as released on Monday:

“We are left with five very significant allegations, all Level 1 allegations and we take these very seriously,” Cunningham said during a teleconference Monday. “Our job is to respond to the facts and the evidence and try to provide a full picture of our case before the NCAA Committee on Infractions.

UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham

“We are working as hard as we can to secure a fair outcome for Carolina. As I mentioned about a year ago, I can only comment on the NCAA process and policies. I can not comment on the substance of our case and I will not speculate on hypothetical outcomes.” The five allegations, which supercede those in the original NOA, are:

■ That from February 2003 to July 20101 , women’s basketball academic counselor Jan Boxill knowingly provided extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements to women’s basketball student-athletes;

■ That in 2014 and 2015, former AFAM student services manager Deborah Crowder violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when she failed to furnish information relevant to an investigation of possible violations of NCAA legislation when requested to do so by the NCAA enforcement staff and the institution;

■ That in 2014 and 2015, AFAM department chair Dr. Julius Nyang’oro violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he failed to furnish information relevant to an investigation of possible violations of NCAA legislation when requested to do so by the NCAA enforcement staff and the institution;

■ That from the 2005 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution violated the NCAA Principle of Rules Compliance when individuals in the athletics and academic administrations on campus, particularly in the college of arts and sciences, did not sufficiently monitor the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department. … It is also alleged that from the beginning of the 2005 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution failed to monitor the activities of Jan Boxill, allowing her to provide extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance to women’s basketball student-athletes over multiple years.

■ And that the scope and nature of the allegations set forth in Allegation Nos. 1 and 4 demonstrate that the institution violated the NCAA Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility when individuals in the athletics and academic administrations on campus, particularly in the college of arts and sciences, did not identify or investigate anomalous courses offered by the AFAM department.

“It’s really important to understand that the notice resulted from our joint investigation with the NCAA and I am focused on responding to this amended notice of allegations,,” Cunningham said. “The NCAA decides what goes into the notice and they made the allegations.

“They measured it against their bylaws and historical precedent and this is what we’re left with.”

Roy Williams’ men’s basketball program was not specifically mentioned in the NCAA’s amended Notice of Allegations

As was the case with the original notice of allegations, UNC has 90 days to file its response to the NCAA. Although the alleged violations spelled out on the amended notice are almost identical, Cunningham said the school will still likely use all its allotted time.

“I would think the 90 days would be a good time frame to use for a response,” Cunningham said.

Once UNC does respond, NCAA’s enforcement staff will have 60 days to come back with its reply. A hearing before the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions will then be scheduled and held. Only then, after another period of deliberation, will any penalties — if warranted — be handed down.

That would mean it will likely be early 2017 before anything is decided.

“This may be the most complicated, involved case in (NCAA) history,” Cunningham said. “There has been a lot of reporting, multiple investigation and the NCAA is now completing its work by issuing the amended notice that is voluminous in nature and is over an extended period of time. I think the volume and the time is probably why it has lasted this long.”